For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer.
Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions
So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you

Wednesday, 18 November 2015

Yes, ladies and gentlemen!From her stunning mastery of Biochemistry - who can forget her claim that cadaverine would have oozed out over Madeleine's skin like a layer of olive oil? - Textusa turns her razor-sharp analytical skills to Physics in general and Optics in particularPrepare to be truly amazedGasp - at the mastery of complicated graphics as Textusa makes some big oval shapes and some little oval shapes.Marvel - as she constructs complex and accurate ray diagrams to explain the two rules of reflection for convex mirrors (A little question I posed her yesterday and which I suspect she has been swotting up ever since, once she was able to contain her grief. Strangely, she has refused to publish either the question or the answer. I cannot imagine why)Laugh - at the simplistic analysis and hilarious argument.Hold on tight, folks

Non-post

The McCanns had been enjoying a day in the sun en famille until security spotted Textusa dangling from the tree above them, with a compass and protractor.

1. Introduction

This week our post will be a non-post.

No change there, then

The content it will have is about a non-issue: the photo known as the last photo.

Or there.

We consider that the only importance the last photo has is that it supports our theory:

No it doesn't

it was faked to show a family time that didn’t exist within a family supposed to be enjoying a week long family holiday.

Of course it was. Matron, the restraints please.

The fact that holiday time didn’t exist was, in our opinion, because the parents were there to enjoy adult time with other adults and that’s how they spent most of the time that week.

For a group that were supposedly shagging each other like theme park chimps at every given opportunity, they seemed to spend a lot of time playing tennis. Perhaps they opted for a ''Get your end away and improve your backhand'' package deal?

We didn’t intend to post this week.

Yes you did.

Life is what life is and not what we would like it to be and much less what we want it to be and personal problems have drawn our attention away from the case.

Uh huh.

But an anonymous posted this comment:

“Anonymous 10 Nov 2015, 17:33:00Can I ask if you will be doing a post on the Last Photo in the near future?I'm a bit torn. I definitely think there is something wrong with the sunglasses reflection but also think it would be very, very difficult to create a convincing composite outdoors days apart in 2007.So I'd be really interested in your thoughts on this.Cheers.”

Naughty, naughty anonymous.......

This all started with an opinion, to which he’s fully entitled to have, given by Tony Bennett about our post “Sagresman”.

There now follows a reprise of the bleating twattishness of the argument between the two biggest nutters on the net. I will point things out from time to time, when I can be arsed.

However, in it he wrote a passage that clearly suggests that we may have changed our minds about the last photo, and would now believe or think it credible that it could have been taken on the 29th.

This being untrue, we sought clarification by placing the following comment in the blog:

“A word to Tony Bennett. There is one thing in your post on JH Forum that we would like to clarify, because you appear to attribute a belief about the last photo that we certainly do not have:“Maria says that the photo was not taken on Sunday 29 April as claimed by Lourenco. She says that the date and time stamp was altered so as to give the date of 29 April to fit in with the bogus story of the alleged kidnapping at Sagres that day. I agree with all those conclusions, and would add that this reminds us, of course, to the discussion about the ‘Last Photo’ which now suggest that it could have been taken on Sunday 29 April and not Thursday 3 May as claimed.”We do NOT believe that this photo of Maddie was taken on Sunday 29 April.We do NOT believe that this photo of Maddie was taken on Thursday 3 May.This photo is so evidently fake that we are thinking of calling it “How-not-to-fake-a-photo-photo” instead of last photo.

"So evidently fake"Once again Textusa nails her knickers to the wall. This is going to come back to haunt her.

We believe that this photo is a composite of 2 photos. One taken of Maddie alone, WE DON’T KNOW WHEN, a copy of which appears in the Mockumentary. The other of Gerry with Amelie, which we believe was taken on 18 May. These 2 photos were then superimposed one over the other resulting in what is this photo.

Why does she believe they were taken on the 18th?She says it is because they were wearing the same clothesThat would be unconvincing even if they were, given as they only took enough clothes for a week.But they weren't. Fabulous research, there, Textusa!

We also believe a third photo was used, one where Gerry has the sunglasses hanging vertically on his t-shirt. We suppose it was also taken on 18 May during the session by the pool with Gerry and Amelie.

We believe,........... we suppose............. 18th May..........Not very convincing, is it?

The lenses of the sunglasses on the composite picture is taken from this 3rd photograph. The reason being that it was the only one where the photographer didn’t appear in the reflection of the sunglasses.

So now we have three imaginary photos, two containing the imaginary reflection of an imaginary photographer

In the original it could have been seen that the photographer wasn’t Kate and that detail had to be removed.

Could have.......................Convinced yet?

We have not changed our minds in any way about what we think of that photo as you seem to be implying in your post.If you would be kind enough to edit your post to make this clear it would be appreciated because we don't want readers misled.”

''We don't want readers misled''

Of course you don't. The fact that your family motto is

''Textusaris ale stupidus. Misledius redus sinceus 1654''

is a complete mystery

We did not seek discussion about the photo. We gave our thoughts about it only to substantiate our request for Tony Bennett to edit his post. He made a statement about us which was incorrect, it was our duty to ask to have it corrected.

Ahhh - your duty. Okay. So nothing to do with you having your knickers in such a twist, the washing instructions were sticking to your armpit, then?

However it seems that this has spawned a debate about whether the photo is or isn’t manipulated thus the comment from anon above.

Naughty, naughty anon............

2. To be manipulated or not to be manipulated

Again, we repeat, we think the photo to have little importance to the material truth.

IF, we repeat IF, it was genuine and taken on the 29, it would ONLY prove that Maddie didn’t die on Saturday.

IF the photo was genuine and taken on the 29 that wouldn’t disprove that she died on the 3rd. Or 30th, 1st or 2nd.

However, if proven to be genuine and taken on 3rd then, obviously, the theory of death before that day would collapse.

Because of that, we think that for the people defending this theory the photo must be genuine and to have been taken on the 29th. And even if hell freezes around them on this issue, they will find a match somewhere, light up and say “look how hot the weather is today”.

We believe that Maddie died on the 3rd. For us, it would be highly convenient to say that the photo to have been taken on that day as the McCanns allege.

We don’t. It’s not our policy to twist fact to tale

Er - yes it is

and we very much doubt that anything on that photo was taken on that day.

Does saying the photo is not from the 3rd disprove anything we have stated? No.

The only importance that photo does have in our opinion happens to be in our favour: it shows the absence of photos of what would be expected in a week long family holiday.

Rubbish. There may be dozens more, for all you know

One thing that the defenders of April 29 have to agree on is that the photo was manipulated.

Oh really?

They must agree to that. The McCanns say it was taken on the 3rd, they say it was on the 29. For that to happen the McCanns had to have manipulated one of its elements: the date.

So, according to them it’s clear, that there was on the part of the McCanns the intention to deceive. That the McCanns made an effort to deceive.

Once that intent is detected and acknowledged, where then does one draw the line of manipulation and say where there is deceit and where there isn’t?

If there was the intention, which will be the case if date altered, how much was that photo manipulated?

They say it’s only on the date. Only the date was changed.

Why? Because that’s what fits their theory.

Ah - so you claim that the photo is manipulated because it fits your theory, in that case. That isn't how evidence works, you know? The theory should be developed from the evidence, not the other way round.

We think intellectual integrity demands that once one accepts there was the intention, for whatever reason, to manipulate one should keep an open mind to all possibilities of manipulation.

You wouldn't know ''intellectual integrity'' if it crapped in your handbag, dear.

3. Sunglasses

Our assessment about the photo having being manipulated is only to with the sunglasses. The reflection on them is physically impossible.

No it isn't.

We think it is fake not because of any pixel manipulation but because of physics.

Ah. Physics. This is going to be fun.I'm going to cut a whole load out of this because it's irrelevant or bollocks

No argument with Darren, it is certainly possible for part of a circle to appear as a straight line in a reflection.

Personally, I believe it's easier than that. Firstly, let's look at Textusa's comparison, though, because I could use a laugh

During the day we spent together in our hotel we asked friends of ours to pose by the kids pool of the hotel. The idea was to replicate the last photo. Only missing a small child to make it perfect:

Oh yes, absolutely perfect. I can hardly tell them apart. No wait, I can. Maybe because they are sitting at and have been photographed at an entirely different angle

Textusa wishes to thank her relatives who agreed to take part in this pretendy reconstruction on condition that their identities were disguised, and wishes them well in the future which they will be spending in witness protection

We have censored all elements that may identify this couple. Experience has unfortunately shown that there are some out there who in their desperate attempts to discredit us will go and do anything even disrespecting the privacy of others who have nothing to do with the case.

You mean like the other week when you stole pictures from someone's blog and used them to represent yourself and your Cling-Ons? Don't worry, I let the blog owners know about that.

The pool, we have checked later on Google Maps was the exact same size of the kids pool at Tapas, with an approximate diameter of 7 metres.

It cannot be simultaneously the ''exact same size'' and ''approximately 7 metres in diameter''

The red circle was drawn over the kids pool at our hotel.

So what is seen reflected is very similar in distortion as to was expected to be seen in Gerry’s sunglasses:

Try that again in an Earth language

These are what we call the Textusa’s sunglasses:

Presumably because they cause the wearer to suffer visual hallucinations?

Anyway, here is her mock up - photographed from the subject's left..........

And here's Gerry, photographed from the right.

Well done missus!Right, we can get rid of some more which is also bollocks....

What unravelled for us the last photo “mystery” was Isabel Oliveira’s question to Darren Ware as to why no photographer appeared on the lenses of Gerry’s sunglasses.

We saw that the glasses had been photoshopped but we simply could not understand why. And the mistake seemed so evident that this particular photoshopping baffled us. We even thought it was on purpose so as to spawn discussions around it by conspiracy theorists.

You ''even thought it was deliberate so as to spawn discussions around it by conspiracy theorists''? Well, if that isn't the last word in tinfoilhattery, I really, truly do not know what is

But Isabel’s question made us realise that with the angle (straight ahead) and height (almost the same as photographer) which Gerry is looking at the camera the photographer had to be reflected in the lens. He or she wasn’t. To hide that could only mean in the original photo it would be visible that the photographer wasn’t Kate.

Ah - and so we come to the physics bit.Strangely, Professor Textusa Hawkings has been reluctant to answer questions relating to the ''physics'' she claims such familiarity with. In fact, she has been reluctant to even publish the questions. Now, I may be going out on a limb, but it suggests this is because she hadn't a clue what they meant. So let us continue, and we'll deal with them as we go.

That realisation made us ask, why not then use another picture to photoshop, one with an horizontal reflection?

The answer is that the Tapas kid’s pool is not a photographic studio. Pictures were taken there and the realisation that photographer appeared in all photos with the horizontal reflection of pool.

Okay - well none of that made any sense, so let's put it in very very simple terms. Terms that even a textaloon could understand. When light strikes a flat mirror, the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection are the same. If you are standing directly in front of a flat mirror, the angle of reflection is basically back down the same path, and the viewer would appear in the middle of the reflection. But when it comes to a small reflective surface, one does not have to be at that great an angle before one is not visible in the reflection. Photographers use several tricks to avoid unwanted reflections in spectacles, for example; usually it is as easy as moving themselves, moving the light source, or even getting the subject to drop or turn their head slightly

So, it is as simple as this - what will be seen reflected in Gerry's sunglasses depends on the angle between the person taking the photo and the glasses. We know his head is bent slightly forward, or the glasses are because the bulk of the reflection appears to be of the water. As the picture has been taken from a slight angle, the angle of incidence will also be slight, hence the sunglasses are reflecting what is in Gerry's peripheral vision, ie, his own shirt, parts of the path, and a little bit of Amelie's hat. It's nothing to do with the poolside, in my opinion.

The picture is complicated by the fact that the surface of the lens appears to be slightly curved and this may cause some distortion in both the lines of and the size of the reflected image and the fact that we also do not know if the lenses were polarised as these can create odd effects when used with a polarising camera filter.

This stunning diagram, entitled ''Some green bits and some yellow bits'' secured Textusa's research grant to study ways of telling her arse from her elbow.

Bullshit

The vertical angle from where it was taken, makes only the reflection of the other side of the pool appear (one would have to see the original to see exactly what is being reflected).

cobblers

That would explain the vertical lines in Gerry’s reflection. They are not vertical lines at all, they are horizontal lines rotated when the lenses of glasses are photoshopped.

This also explains the little pink bit, which would be Amelie’s hat reflected where she was in the original picture – not the last photo, as the original from where the glasses were taken from has nothing to do with it.

Ah - so Amelie's hat was coincidentally reflected in the "Not the Last Photo" in exactly the same place as it would have been reflected in the "Actual Last Photo"Amazing!

To show how easy it is to photoshop the lenses, we did just that:

Only we didn’t use photoshop. We used a much less powerful and basic image editing tool: paintbrush. Just cropped the left lens (left from the point of view of a person looking at Gerry), flipped it horizontally and placed it over the pixels that were in the right lens.

The left lens is the original. Please tell the difference.

That simple. A photoshopped image leaving all shadows and other pixels intact.

Which wouldn't fool an expert for a second and which immediately looks completely wrong as that lens would not be reflecting what is now in it. You seriously think an expert would not spot that?

The defenders of the originality of the photo say that it’s genuine because 2 experts say it is. We have never heard this. The best we heard to that effect was that they thought that it was “fairly certain” that it was an original.

Yes, but they are experts. You're not

“Fairly certain” is quite far from saying “this was NOT 'several generations' away from the original, that in fact it was NO 'generations' away from the original, and indeed was an ORIGINAL, GENUINE, UNPHOTOSHOPPED photo”.

By the way, if any expert had said that then they would show themselves not to be experts at all. No expert could, in a technological area, say for certainty that a photo has not been tampered with.

That is why they don't say ''absolutely certain'' you fucktard.

Reason being that in this area one can only use the tools one knows technology has at that moment. One is not aware if there is new technology that renders the tools one has useless.

An expert can determine if a photo has been manipulated but no expert would give absolute certainty that it was not. The best an expert can do is to say that with the tools available he detected no manipulation. That is not saying it was not manipulated.

“20.1 I have taken an initial look at the image. The artefacts alluded to in the pdf document that you sent are simply JPEG compression artefacts (as described here: http://www.fourandsix.com/blog/2011/6/29/that-looks-fake.html ). If you magnify other parts of the image you will see similar artefacts. I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent -- they are. I see no other anomalies in the photo. So, at first glance, I see no evidence of photo tampering.

I will add that it is fairly easy to change dates in an image's metadata or for these dates to be wrong. As such these dates should not be solely relied upon.

Regards,

Y Y Y Y

20.2 “From what I saw I couldn't see anything that would lead me to believe beyond reasonable doubt it had been doctored. The fringing mentioned can be caused by auto sharpening used in consumer digital cameras to make 'better' or 'sharper' images. These artefacts can often be made worse from image compression algorithms out of photoshop or other image manipulation software.”

Neither are stating without doubt that it was not doctored.

I have highlighted the important words for you to see if we can get it into your thick skull''Beyond reasonable doubt'' is the standard of proof required in a court of law. It is the standard of proof required to convict. In some countries, it is the standard of proof required to send a convict to their execution. It is therefore a perfectly adequate standard of proof for a menopausal halfwit with a swinging fixation and the IQ of a small haggis.

We don’t know what was asked of the experts. We don’t know if they were paid for their opinion. If they weren’t we don't what was their motivation to collaborate nor what was their commitment when they answered.

Doesn't matter

We could be confronted with a brush-off answer like we saw was given by the Wayback Machine with its first reply.

We don’t know the pressure they felt in saying the photo was genuine because of fear of being sued if they said otherwise.

Cobblers

We don’t know what photo they looked at, as we very much doubt the McCanns sent the originals to the expert for said analysis.

So have you got the original then? So they had the same as you, idiot.

Without looking at the detailed reports from experts we don’t know what their opinions are precisely.

Then get it analysed yourself

Experts do not create truth. Experts explain truth. Truth was always there before they explain it. It’s their expertise that makes us see it when previously our ignorance did not allow us to do so. But what experts can't do is to invent truth.

Which is what they have done

It’s our eyes and our brains that tell us what truth is.

Not in your fucking case. Your brain tells you there was no big round table and that the film of Brunt sat on it was - and I quote - ''digitally remastered'' to make a small table look like a big one.

No one and nothing else. Experts’ opinions guide us to more solid reasons to what we believe to be truth. Because we believe it to be so and not because they tell us it is.

So if you were ill and your doctor said to you ''It's kidney cancer'' would you insist it was actually just a kidney stone because ''you believed it to be so''? Actually, you probably would, but imagine you're a normal person for a moment.

Galileo Galilei was surrounded by experts that at the time stated without doubt that the earth was flat. These experts and those supporting them, did not allow anyone to question such expertise.

No - Galileo was the expert, you dimwit, surrounded by religious zealots and fruit loops, who proved that the Earth and other planets orbited the Sun and not the other way round, for which they locked him up as a heretic. They'd worked out it was spherical about a thousand years earlier. Seriously, did you attend school? The point is that he was the expert - and was right. Unlike you, who is not the expert, and is wrong. Again.

This is what I said to Tony Bennett on Facebook, on September 22, concerning the experts:

“I have already pointed out to you that the experts you keep repeating have deemed the last photo as “photoshop-free” are completely useless for the discussion we have had here, unless they have expertise in other areas than the ones you’ve mentioned.

I am not putting them down or minimising their opinions. As you’ll see I would very much like to hear their opinion on something. But this is NOT about photoshopping this is about the physics of imagery. This is not their area of expertise.

And it's clearly not yours - what you know about physics could be written on the back of a small trifle sponge.

(…)

To your photoshopping experts I would put only one question: are the lenses of the sunglasses photoshopped?

However, I would only be satisfied with only one answer from them: “yes”. And I can tell you right now that I would expect for their answer to be “no”.

Oh fuck off, do.

Before you criticise me I am not being disrespectful to them or stubbornly accepting only one answer as I’ll explain next.

The answer “no” would be the most likely but for me would be inconclusive.

Why? Because I think the lenses shown belong to the frame and that the frame belongs to the face. So I’m almost certain that the analysis by experts of the border between lenses/frame and the border between frame/head would both result in a conclusive “no, it’s not photoshopped”. And they would be correct.

I have some limited experience in image formatting,

Very fucking limited

am not an expert

Ain't that the truth

and my “work” is exposed in the images I publish on the blog. It’s limited but it is experience and is enough to allow me to know that what I would be asking your experts to detect (now we’re talking pixels and not physics) is very hard or even impossible to detect: the superimposition of solid colour over the exact same solid colour.

Okay, bollocks to this, you are talking out of your arse as usual, I'm deleting the rest

Our reader, Nuala Seaton made the following entry on Facebook:

She can fuck off too, dozy arrogant bitch.

“Anthony Bennett I'm not interested in what your experts had to say. We don't know who they are and we don't know what questions they were asked. Besides which no-one should blindly take the word of an expert and I'm surprised that you do. Anyone who has seen expert witnesses giving testimony in court cases knows two experts on the same subject can have totally opposing views.

So expecting to shut down this debate with the "experts" argument isn't going to work. We're intelligent people with minds of our own and we use them.

Ha ha, ha, oh god, she really means that, bless her.

Back to more of Textusa's blether

This is what we think happened with the manipulation:

A photo of Maddie was taken during the week:

A photo session by the pool, in the weeks after Maddie disappeared, was arranged to create the idea the McCann family spent time together by the pool. One photo was chosen:

In a studio, when doing the composition, it was realised that the photographer appeared in the reflection. Another photo taken during that session by the pool where such a reflection didn’t appear was chosen:

The three put together made up the last photo:

You believe it if you like, Textusa. After all, you believe there was no big table and the entire crime is a conspiracy involving thousands of people including Martin Brunt and the Pope, so...........

This was brought to you by an expert in drawing on things with a crayon. Please give generously

FootnoteNot for one second do I think the last photo is a cut & paste job. It is, however, important to make clear that there is absolutely no evidence supporting Bennett's bonkers theory either''It was sunnier on the Sunday''So what? It isn't as if there was an absence of sun on the Wednesday, that is perfectly clear.''They are more tanned''Nonsense - you cannot make a comparison with a photograph taken in the dark and one in bright sunshine. As is well illustrated by the fact that Gerry's hair looks several shade darker in the one taken in the dark.We know there are other photos in the possession of the police which PROVE madeleine was alive on the Thursday, so stop making arses of yourselves.

Saturday, 14 November 2015

Evening allIt'll probably be tomorrow before I get around to replying to Textusa's latest heap of shite, but I thought I would just drop this in.There seems to be a great deal of discussion about the reflection in the sunglasses of ''the edge of the pool'', which is truly absorbing. However, as the reflection in question is clearly of the wall or whatever it is to Gerry's left, it's all rather moot.More tomorrow.

Friday, 6 November 2015

Morning allIt seems that Textusa, having turned the loonylight on every corner of this case, even going so far as to jump on a plane and grace the Algarve with her foetid presence, is now struggling for things to loon about. Without this is a feeble effort. It's so feeble, I thought it must have been written by ''May I''Anyway - enjoy

Fraud

In the comments section in our post “The Narrative of Negligence” we mentioned that there had been 2 very interesting articles published about Maddie.

Interested and able to understand it? Newspapers do not send coded messages to the public, dear. Not the sane ones, anyway.

The other article of interest was the Sun’s article of October 26 “‘£100,000 fraud’ on Maddie fund” about a huge fraud of £100,000 concerning the Find Madeleine fund, as its title explicitly states.

Please note the wording we have just used. We could have said that it was about a huge fraud by someone ripping-off the Find Madeleine fund but we didn’t. We were intentionally specious.

Ah yes - Textusa's favourite word. If ever a word applied less to Textusa's diatribes than ''specious'' I should love to see it The paper used the words ''Fraud ON Maddie fund''It would take a special kind of idiot to read that and take it to mean ''Fraud BY Maddie fund''Step forward that idiot.

Having fully understood the intent of the article we decided to collaborate and play along with it so wished to be as specious as the other side.

When you have reached the stage where you seriously believe the newspapers are sending you coded messages, I think it's time to admit you need help

Well, unlike your good self, they do not feel obliged to turn a subheading into War and Peace

Only inside and in the text’s smaller print does it tell the uncloaked truth: “The fund to find Madeleine McCann was ripped off by up to £100,000, whistleblowers claim.”

The subtlety? Saying “rip” in big words and “fraud” in even bigger ones so that the eye captures them immediately and only then use the truthful “ripped” inside in the small letters of the text.

The report, one only later finds out when reading it, is about how the Find Madeleine fund was ripped off and not because it was a rip-off.

But the mind, led by the word “fraud” in the title and the “rip-off” in the subtitle is misled into thinking that ripping-off, or fraud, was done by the Find Madeleine fund, by one of its people.

No it isn't. Well, not if one is in full possession of a set of marbles, anyway. It is quite clear from the words ''£100,000 fraud on Maddie fund'' that the article concerns a fraud against the fund, and not by it.

Later, when the “correction” comes when it’s said, in much smaller letters that the fraud was done against the Find Madeleine fund, the damage has already been done.

There is no ''correction''

In the public’s brain the seed of fraud was successfully planted in the Find Madeleine fund’s fertile soil to be denigrated.

The report is about how an unidentified person has wrongly used £100,000 of the Find Madeleine fund.

That was obvious right from the start

This news echoed in the Portuguese press.

Many have said it was just the rehashing of news about Kevin Halligen.

In our opinion it couldn’t possibly be. If it was so, why not name him? If it were him, would there be the need for 2 whistleblowers to sign affidavits to the Sun?

Who knows? Generally, you can't just go around accusing people in print

This was on October 26 and many days have passed since. Today, we still do not know the identity of that person.

You are not entitled to know it. Move along

It’s a fact that a crime of £100,000 has been reported by a newspaper (?) and apparently no one in the UK wants to know anything about it.

You have no idea whether it is being investigated or not. Generally the police don't share their news with a dingbat, menopausal foreigner with a table fixation

The parents, to whom the Sun allegedly handed this directly, bypassing any and all legitimate authorities, have not reacted even though they did supposedly say through their ex-former spokesman Clarence Mitchell: “Madeleine’s Fund takes extremely seriously any suggestion monies intended for the search have been obtained fraudulently. Kate, Gerry and the other directors of Madeleine’s Fund will co-operate fully with authorities to ensure these claims are fully investigated.”

Not a word from them since. Not the minimal reaction. It’s like £100,000 is just short change for them and for the Find Madeleine fund that is supposed to help the search of their missing daughter.

What were you expecting them to do? Appear on Breakfast TV and perform the Haka? You have no idea what action, if any, has been taken.

£100,000 seem just to be something someone carelessly dropped on the floor and it wasn’t worth the effort of bending the back to pick it up.

Remember the hype that a dossier containing opinions caused last year?

It cost Brenda Leyland her life and even the Commissioner of the Met referred to the dossier publicly on a radio show. Sky News pounded our ears every 15 minutes with it that day. Days of tragic memory, those.

A dossier with opinions deserved all that but the Find Madeleine fund being ripped-off of £100,000 deserves… nothing. Only silence.

A dead woman is far more newsworthy than an ancient, alleged theft

After this report we even had the news from Sun “McCanns: We’ll never give up” that the McCanns had ring-fenced £750,000 to search for Maddie after Operation Grange archived the case – once again making everyone wonder if they had to ring-fence this money to find Madeleine then what else was at risk to spend it on?

One has to wonder if in this £750,000 is included the money that they put aside into the separate account destined to continue to search in case the Met washed their hands off the case. Clarence Mitchell was very clear that such an account was created, only we never got to know how much money ever went into it.

Oh ffs. It's not difficult. They set up a Restricted fund, that ringfenced money for the search. Why? Who knows? To stop the courts getting their mits on it, probably

If this £750,000 is in that separate account, then how much money remained in the Find Madeleine fund and what is it expected to be spent on?

But as the article seems to say “Kate and Gerry McCann have already ringfenced the rest of the cash in the Find Madeleine Fund, around £750,000” it seems this amount is all there is left in terms of money in the Find Madeleine fund.

We think that to whoever has only £750,000, £100,000 is a significant amount. An amount which one should be worried about. If it wasn’t for that rip-off the Find Madeleine fund would now have £850,000.

Ten different ways to say the same bloody thing.........

An amount that one would expect the allegedly hindered party would be REALLY interested in knowing what happened to it and do all to see if they could recover any.

Nope. Just silence. Did you say £100,000? Oh please, we have so many other important things to worry about... We did say we were worried, didn’t we? Please look at our worried faces behind these smiles.

The reason for this nonchalant silence is simple. This allegation has, in our opinion, as much truth as all the Sun has ever reported about the Maddie case since 2007: nothing.

It has simply the objective to glue to the public’s eye the word FRAUD to the Find Madeleine fund.

What a load of utter cobblers. Seriously, when you start to believe the newspapers contain coded messages, it's time to go and get yourself looked at

Why else the need to say “there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Kate or Gerry”? Whoever suggested that? Why then the need to clarify something that wasn’t raised in the first place?

They put that in every time

Aren’t we taken back to the Narrative of Negligence? When they kept shouting how not negligent they had not been to make sure we noticed that they, very conveniently, were supposed to have been negligent?

So, it seems someone is making a serious effort to stick the word FRAUD to the Find Madeleine fund’s forehead.

Well If that’s the case all we can then do is help them out doing that.

And we will use hard fact to do so. We will use what reality provides us as we think it provides us with enough evidence to show how much the fraudulent Find Madeleine fund is indeed fraudulent.

Oh good. This should be a laugh. She's now going to tell you that all fundraising campaigns have 3 phases. It's hilarious. See you on the other side

And what hard fact is that? It’s the GoFund through which we helped support Mr Amaral’s legal fees.

We all watched in rightful wonder and delighted amazement the way people gave to it while it was open.

In the 6 months it existed it reached more than double of its set objective of £25,000. 2,814 donations adding up to £52,900. Very impressive. Emotional even.

The GoFund fund was opened on April 29 and because those responsible for it thought it had reached fully its objectives – in fact as we said, it doubled them – announced its closure on October 28. It ran for a total of 182 days.

All fund raising campaigns have 3 phases.

The initial phase, when the passion of contributors is shown by the very quick rhythm of incoming funds. This causes an impression and helps augment the contributions. Contributors giving encourage a bigger number of other contributors to do same. This is the stage in which the greatest efforts to publicise it are made. It’s the most impressive stage.

The plateau phase, when the initial enthusiasm passes and only those truly passionate and committed continue to give. Publicity is understandably scarcer and sparser with time. The rhythm of money received decreases significantly until it reaches a stabilised level. However, this level continues to diminish slowly but steadily with time usually trickling down to virtually nothing, or even nothing in prolonged campaigns. It’s the trickling stage.

When the trickling becomes nothing then this phase is also the final phase of a campaign.

The final phase, happens only when there’s a set deadline which interrupts the flux of contributions. It’s then the very last efforts are made and the publicity returns. Contributions do make a come back but not in the same amount or enthusiasm as in the initial phase but certainly in greater quantities than received during the plateau phase.

The GoFund went through all these 3 phases. The Find Madeleine fund is in the plateau phase and has been like in that stage for the last 7 years. All this time in that stage in which the level of contributions slowly but steadily diminish.

The GoFund, because it lasted such a short time – not criticising, simply observing – even during the plateau phase, received daily significant amounts of money all the time it was possible to contribute to it.

We will consider the end result £52,900 and the number of days it was active, 182, and come to a daily amount the GoFund received daily: £291.

If it had run only for 1 month, according to this simplistic reasoning, it would have raised £8.730. For a year, £106,215.

It has been reported that the Find Madeleine fund had the following income yearly (from April 1 to March 31) during its plateau or trickling stage (still ongoing):

April 2008 to March 2009 – £650,766

April 2009 to March 2010 – £233,472

April 2010 to March 2011 – £177,635

April 2011 to March 2012 – £856,542 (this year, the revenue from book is to be included)

April 2012 to March 2013 – £70,573

April 2013 to March 2014 – £421,522

This means, and continuing to use our reasoning, that:

April 2008 to March 2009 – a daily amount of £1,783, a month: £53,488;

April 2009 to March 2010 – a daily amount of £640, a month: £19,189;

April 2010 to March 2011 – a daily amount of £487, a month: £14,600;

April 2011 to March 2012 – a daily amount of £2,347, a month: £70,401;

April 2012 to March 2013 – a daily amount of £193, a month: £5,801;

April 2013 to March 2014 – a daily amount of £1,155, a month: £34,646;

GoFund – a daily amount of £291, a month: £8,730;

Kate bike – a daily amount of £121, a month: £3,630.

Except from April 2012 to March 2013, all other years the Find Madeleine’s income was significantly better than the GoFund’s one. Very significantly better.

It's the book sales

Impressively much, much better than of what we know was impressive.Kate’s Cycle fund is overcome even by 2012/2013.

We all witnessed how passionately people gave to help Mr Amaral with his legal fees.

Knowing that, how realistic can the numbers for the Find Madeleine fund be?

They simply can’t. Not even for 2012/2013.

It's the book sales

We very much doubt that after the dogs in July 2007, the general public continued to feel motivated to give to this fund any longer. The news about the dogs broke out in August 2007.

We are certain that with the parents’ possible guilt exposed the contributions stopped or trickled down to almost nothing. This is 2007.

So you are certain are you? Although you have no access to the fund and the audited accounts say otherwise?

The numbers, incomprehensibly seem to say otherwise.

For example, they say that from April 2013 to March 2014 the Find Madeleine fund had an income of £421,522.

It's the book sales

Was there then a campaign that would justify having people give monthly 4 times more than in the 6 months people gave enthusiastically to the GoFund? We don’t remember any to justify going from £70,573 in one year and then to £421,522 in the next.

It's the book sales

Did Kate’s book selling numbers justify the fund’s revenue – £856,542 – to be 8 times better than GoFund’s? Hardly, we all witnessed the flop it was. The book was put on sale with a discount! Worse only was theSummers & Swan literary achievement with their book on Maddie.

Absolute nonsense. It sold very well, unlike the Summers and Swan book

Could these numbers be justified by the 618 donators who gave “enthusiastically” to Kate’s 500 Mile Cycle Challenge with equal enthusiasm here?

No, they couldn’t because the numbers of this fund show they gave much less enthusiastically than the ones who did to help Mr Amaral’s legal fees.

The numbers simply don’t add up in the Find Madeleine fund.

Yes they do. You don't.

We urge that the rightful UK authorities go and REALLY audit this fund. We know the system says it is audited but on anything related to Maddie we have long stopped believing in the system.

The numbers shown, now having the GoFund ones to compare with, are simply not realistic.

Right - you go to companies house and say ''I think this fund should have less money because I have compared it to one other short-lived campaign'' See how you get on, I enjoy a laugh.

To say the money came from commercial companies doesn’t make sense as these do not throw money away without having a return in publicity about their altruism.

As we said we believe the general public has long stopped wanting to go through the trouble of giving to the Find Madeleine fund.

Note that our reasoning benefits the Find Madeleine fund because the GoFund went on only for 6 months.

If it had gone on further in time, like the Find Madeleine fund has, we are certain that within a year the contributions would trickle down to a fraction of what we have considered as the daily and monthly values.

It's the book sales

As we said, the Find Madeleine fund has been in the trickling stage for a long, long time. For the last last 7 years. A lot of bracelets would have to have been sold for the numbers to be correct.

It's the book sales

Besides Gerry and Kate we haven’t seen any other human being wearing one since 2007.

Either we’re missing something or the numbers are lying. We opt for the latter.

If the numbers are lying then we are confronted with a fraud.

It. Is. The. Fucking. Book. Sales.

Authorities should verify the origins of the money received by this fund.

Because today, thanks to Mr Amaral’s legal help fund, we’re certain that it isn’t the general public who is responsible for the ridiculous numbers above.

It is.

However, one must not forget the good people from that same general public who donated to the Find Madeleine fund back in 2007.

These people were not moved by the sense of injustice that would move those who supported Mr Amaral’s legal fees 8 years later but by a genuine concern with the fate of a British toddler with a mark in her eye.

Remembering those beautiful, beautiful people, we would like to quote one of the Sun’s whistleblowers:“What made the fraud so disgusting was money came from people who shed tears over her disappearance and wanted to do their little bit.”

Poignant, poignant words. And true ones.

After all we just want what Kate McCann has said about the Find Madeleine fund in her book: “So the fund took the form of a not-for-profit, private limited company. It was set up with great care and due diligence by experts in the field. From the outset everyone agreed that, despite the costs involved, it must be run to the highest standards of transparency. There needed to be independent directors as well as family representatives, and people from a variety of professions joined my uncle Brian Kennedy and Gerry’s brother Johnny on the board. At the time, though, we had little idea how important these measures would prove to be in enabling us to withstand the massive scrutiny to which the fund would be subjected, especially when the tide turned against us” (underlining is ours).